Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Anti-Lacrosse Extremist: No Apologies

Anti-lacrosse extremist Orin Starn took to the pages of today's H-Sto proclaim that "there was no need for Brodhead to apologize in remarks last Saturday at Duke Law School."

There were, of course, villains in the case. Who were they? The lacrosse players, whose party "was shameful in the first place. We wouldn't be wasting so much time and energy if the lacrosse players had shown some semblance of good judgment.""Bloggers and our new lacrosse book authors have stirred up still more trouble with their myopic, mean-spirited, caricatured story line" as they have created an "inaccurate, sanctimonious, pseudo-objective blog-driven framing of the lacrosse case."And, oh, by the way, "a a few faculty" might have rushed to judgment. Who were these professors? Starn doesn't say.

Why does Starn feel no need to apologize? "I discovered after the case broke that one wrongfully accused student, Reade Seligmann, had been in one of my classes. I wrote him early on to express my concerns about the allegations and offer support."

To begin with, Starn "discovered" this fact not because he actually knew the students that he himself taught, but because I mentioned the fact in a blog posting and e-mailed him to ask him about his experiences with Seligmann. I've also seen the e-mail that Starn wrote his wrongfully accused student, saying how badly he felt and offering support.

A few weeks later, the anti-lacrosse extremist followed up that e-mail with a Herald-Sun op-ed that read as if it scripted by Nifong's pr staff. After mildly criticizing the DA for possible shortcomings in his approach to the case, Starn advanced his basic arguments: (1) the case needed to go to trial regardless of Nifong's massive procedural improprieties, since “most Durhamites want to hear all the evidence before passing judgment;” and (2) that he would be “vigilant in ensuring that both [the players] and their accuser receive fair treatment from the justice system,” thereby creating the spectacle of a tenured professor conflating the rights of an accuser in the “justice system” with those of defendants. (In his op-ed today, Starn implied that he's abandoned his commitment to such vigilance, at least about protecting the falsely accused players' rights--he criticized the proposed civil suit settlement with the city.)

In both his fall op-ed and his production today, "Supporter Starn" offered his strongest criticism of . . . the party and the lacrosse team's drinking (without mentioning even one positive item from the Coleman Committee report). But “none of this,” Starn hastened to add last fall, “means that the three indicted lacrosse players are guilty.” Indeed not. He was just relaying the information as part of his promise to show Reade Seligmann his full support.

You should read the piece closer, KC -- he doesn't read your blog... Perhaps that's been your problem all along -- you just don't grasp what others say, since you come to this with your opinions prepackaged.

So if the dear professor doesn't read the blogs, then he must have pulled this comment straight out of his butt....

"Bloggers and our new lacrosse book authors have stirred up still more trouble with their myopic, mean-spirited, caricatured story line" as they have created an "inaccurate, sanctimonious, pseudo-objective blog-driven framing of the lacrosse case."

it warms my heart to see things like the Starn piece, because I know that the Klan of 88 is edging closer to breaking the terms of the settlement Duke gave the 3.

wish I had a nickel for every person involved in this case that said they don't read the blogs and boards. I actually think some of the DPD's fake "evidence" and theory of the crime came from the moonbats over at TL.

sure He doesn't read the blogs!

LOL

there is still hope for you lesser academics tho, maybe Duke will pony up the 30MM to help Durm settle.

KC, You are at your best with this type of post. I think many Duke alums will still be frustrated with the lacrosse legacy as long as Duke's leaders provide cover for the likes of Starn. That cover is pervasive, and it appears that only a handful of professors (Gustafson, Baldwin, perhaps Munger) have the moxie to say what many are thinking. Even Jim Coleman, for whom I have great respect, has rejected the characterization of the 88 as "extremist" or motivated by politically correct agendas. He made these statements recently on a WBUR radio show in response to Stuart Taylor's discussion of the 88's (mis)behavior. If Pres. Brodhead's "ill-judged" and "divisive" statement is the most forceful denunciation of the 88 that Duke's leadership can muster, then it appears that little will change at Duke. BTW, I'm in favor of an external committee charged with reviewing the faculty culture at Duke, and specifically the behavior of the 88. But I'm not holding my breath.

I sure hope the piece of crap Starn just wrote for the H-S pulls him out from the legal protection afforded under Duke's initial settlement with the 3 Hoax victims. Let's see if exposure to personal liability helps Starn--and his wacked-out ilk--to begin thinking clearly (assuming he's even capable of such).

The 11:01 and 11:10, like Starn's editorial, don't actually mention any of the specific charges and arguments KC makes. It's interesting that Starn points out examples of him criticizing Nifong--maybe KC should analyze what he means by that. But ignoring everything KC has said about the Group of 88, including many, many of their own quotes, cannot be persuasive.

Why, why, is this what we get in the way of dissent: no facts, no arguments, just "people see you as a one-sided, unfair crank" and "you just don't grasp what others say."

KC isn't reluctant to support his views with evidence and facts. If you disagree with him and would like him and others to respect your views, do likewise. Your position is badly weakened when you fail to.

I hope that the annonymous post at 11:01 is not Prof. Starn. If a person were to make a public argument - in a newspaper for example - and sign his name to it and then pretend to be someone else agreeing with the article, then I think there has been a violation of the unwritten rules of public discourse, a breach of implicit trust. Prof. Starn has interesting points of view worth thinking about. Annonymous 11:01, on the other hand, has no credibility.

Ahhh. We see that Professor Starn still reserves his greatest concern for the "ill-judged" lacrosse party...even now...after all of this. How ironic his editorial appears in the H-S (of all papers) the same day as the article which threatens to blow completely apart the Durham/Duke role in this extraordinary, historic case that only continues to stun its students.

At least we know President Brodhead landed his "sideswipe" at the G88...they understood his meaning completely.

Starn also claims, in the article, that he hasn't read "the blogs" for months.

I say he's a liar -- as already proven.

So Orin, how do you like this:

You're a liar, a hypocrite, a moron, and an enemy of the U.S. Comstitution, all while fraudulently masquerading as a caring, liberal intellectual. And of course you are still reading this blog, so....Go Eff yourself.

Nice to see what a high-quality readership you have, KC. To Duke's great credit, they have not -- and will not -- limit the ability of their faculty to express their opinion. Or do you readers agree with your National Socialist (Nazi) buddies, who believe that Duke's black faculty should be lynched? If you have Starn's message to Seligman, then post it -- let people judge for themselves what Starn's motives were.

His No Apology is typical of what you would expect from a little man whose only view of life is looking at it through a window of a classroom.....with his nose plastered up against the glass...producing a grimace that portrays a very envious and frustrated person.

"Daddy and Mammy" Starn weaned little Orin on campus life and that's all he knows. Freebies down at the Berkley coffee shop have morphed into freebies over at the granola bar on Ninth St. in Durham.

People like Starn don't have enough experience in the real world to be opining about the lacrosse players and their families---who, BTW, pay his salary like all students who attend Duke, so that he can continue being a worthless and superfluous flame thrower.....while doing so very little in return.

"Better shut his mouth"... or else? What would you do, Debbie? What do you REALLY want to do to Starn? What do you fantasize about? What really turns you on about Starn? You seem to have a really obsession -- tell us!

"To Duke's great credit, they have not -- and will not -- limit the ability of their faculty to express their opinion."

I agree that faculty shoyudl have a right to express their opinions, however stupid, ignorant or vile. I don't understand why Duke feels the need to hire so many faculty members who are stupid, ignorant and vile.

To 12:08,KC's "Nazi" buddies? KC thinking that "Duke's black faculty should be lynched"? I'm not sure whether to call the folks who can put you in that little white jacket with the straps and strings and all (it would be all the rage in the faculty lounge); or just nominate you for a chaired professorship in the Cultural Anthropology Dept. at Duke.

"By speaking only of his own supposed mistakes together with a swipe at "ill-judged and divisive" faculty comments, he left unchallenged the inaccurate, sanctimonious, pseudo-objective blog-driven framing of the lacrosse case that by force of repetition seems to have metamorphosed into the truth of what actually happened."

Brodhead can apologize for what he did or did not do because those were his actions. He can apologize for what others in the university did or did not do because as president he has responisbility for the university as a whole.

He cannot apologize for any wrongs done by "bloggers" because they are not his responsibility. He could have attacked the "bloggers", but that would have distracted from what he was trying to do, which was address issues of how Duke university reacts to crises.

How did a man unable to figure out something this easy ever become a professor?

I, for one, have consistently said here that Duke cannot and must NOT limit the free speech rights of its professors -- even the really stupid, ignorant and vicious ones.

However, it is appropriate to criticize them here as needed, and to point out when they are hypocritical, or when they flat-out lie about their past statements, or when their pretentious rhetoric hides an essentially anti-freedom, putsch mentality.

You don't mind that, or question our right to do that, do you -- hmmm?

While I'm glad the 3 families got some closure from Duke in the form of their multi-million dollar settlement, the one regret I have is that Starn's ilk didn't have to sit down and raise his or her right hand and swear to tell the truth; a good litigator would have verbally eviscerated them.

But maybe there's hope! I can't believe this latest screed didn't violate the terms of the settlement agreement, or if not, maybe with the new civil suits there will be a holdout in the remaining 43.

The Department Of Justice and the Administration Office Of The Courts, and countless others watch this site and KNOWS exactly how deep the roots of corruption reaches. It is a wall of silence, and a deliberate cover-up! It disgusts me to know our own government cares nothing for individual rights, and IMO is just prolonging the "HOAX!" You have to wonder what they are afraid of revealing, and who are they protecting? Certainly isn't the citizens, and I consider this to be one of the biggest criminal conspiracies of our lives. I am sure they are plenty more cases of the same abuses in office in each state, and the "FED"S" have no inclination to begin the domino effect.Rhonda FlemingCleveland, OhioSister of Durham brother, murdered in 2005, still fighting the system for an investigation, and resolution.

In Loving Memory To My Dearest Brother, Allen Jackson Croft Jr.I vow to seek Justice and Truth, and will continue to fight for what is right. For you, for God, and for all of those who have no voice! How I wish you were here....

"Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit, it is a revolutionary Act"George Orwell

The Department Of Justice and the Administration Office Of The Courts, and countless others watch these sites, and KNOWS exactly how deep the roots of corruption reaches. It is a wall of silence, and a deliberate cover-up! It disgusts me to know our own government cares nothing for individual rights, and IMO is just prolonging the "HOAX!" You have to wonder what they are afraid of revealing, and who are they protecting? Certainly isn't the citizens, and I consider this to be one of the biggest criminal conspiracies of our lives. I am sure they are plenty more cases of the same abuses in office in each state, and the "FED"S" have no inclination to begin the domino effect.Rhonda FlemingCleveland, OhioSister of Durham brother, murdered in 2005, still fighting the system for an investigation, and resolution.

In Loving Memory To My Dearest Brother, Allen Jackson Croft Jr.I vow to seek Justice and Truth and will continue to fight for what is right. For you, for God, and for all of those who have no voice! How I wish you were here.

"Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit, it is a revolutionary Act"George Orwell

The Department Of Justice and the Administration Office Of The Courts, and countless others watch these sites, and KNOWS exactly how deep the roots of corruption reaches. It is a wall of silence, and a deliberate cover-up! It disgusts me to know our own government cares nothing for individual rights, and IMO is just prolonging the "HOAX!" You have to wonder what they are afraid of revealing, and who are they protecting? Certainly isn't the citizens, and I consider this to be one of the biggest criminal conspiracies of our lives. I am sure they are plenty more cases of the same abuses in office in each state, and the "FED"S" have no inclination to begin the domino effect.Rhonda FlemingCleveland, OhioSister of Durham brother, murdered in 2005, still fighting the system for an investigation, and resolution.

In Loving Memory To My Dearest Brother, Allen Jackson Croft Jr.I vow to seek Justice and Truth and will continue to fight for what is right. For you, for God, and for all of those who have no voice! How I wish you were here.

"Mike Lee said... Most people see Starn as a pompous jackass who signed a statement condemning his own students. Is it any surprise that a member of the 88 sees no reason to apologize.10/3/07 11:31 AM"

I've checked and I do not see Starn as a signatory of the Group of 88's listening ad.

Using your strawman logic, we can then assume you agree with Houston A. Baker, Jr. and his March 29, 2006 letter which contains:

"Surely the answer to the question must come in the form of immediate dismissals of those principally responsible for the horrors of this spring moment at Duke. Coaches of the lacrosse team, the team itself and its players, and any other agents who silenced or lied about the real nature of events at 610 Buchanan on the evening of March 13, 2006. A day that, not even in a clichéd sense, will, indeed, always live in infamy for this university."

Dr.Starn, as I indicated this several times on the FODU pages, Dr. Johnson did what you guys at Duke were supposed to do at the very beginning of this unfortunate case. He stood up for your students and did fight for them 24/7. Some Duke professors were there for Dave, Reade, and Collin, and the entire Duke Lacrosse Team, but what Dr. Johnson did was beyond one's comprehension. Did you read the article titled "All Over-Almost" published in today's Chronicle and saw the following remarks from one of your students, Oliver Sherouse, a Trinity junior ? He says,".... I do have to say directly to the Group of 88: It's time to put the whole nasty business behind us. We, your students, need to know that you are with us, and not just waiting to go after us. We need to know that you see more in us than drunks and racists and rapists and potential rapists. We need to know that you value the truth. We need you to apologize. Please."

Dr. Starn, I know you didn't sign the listening ad, yet you are one of the anti-lacrosse faculty. At this point, please do the honorable thing and stop attacking to Dr. Johnson and start respecting to your students, DUKE STUDENTS.

Since Starn did not know that Reade Seligman was once his student, then I must conclude that 1) cultural anthropology courses must be huge lecture classes that make it impossible for the professors to remember their students' names, and 2) Reade Seligman's face on Newsweek and local papers didn't jar his memory either. Does this guy pay any attention whatsoever to his students?

Having said that, Starn is correct to note that Brodhead "may have the least reason to [apologize] of anyone" at Duke. Starn and the G88 are far worse, but don't expect them to ever admit it.

and Sean Bell is the villain in the New York shooting case because he attended a shameful strip club and we wouldn't be wasting so much time and energy if Bell and his compatriots had shown some semblance of good judgment

Oh man, I'd hate to be on the Duke legal staff right about now: I think I'd do like the character Hudson in the film "Aliens" did when the Marines got the green lieutenant as a 'leader' and ask "Sarge, how do I get out of this chicken-shit operation?" Like Hudson, I'd be getting the feeling I was about to buy-it at the hands of some creepy alien like that Starn joker.

I sure hope Duke has a lot of $$ saved up to cover for morons like Orin, et al. They just don't seem to know when to shut the f*** up.

I guess the settlement with Duke didn't restrict faculty from further libelous/slanderous statements about the falsely-accused lacrosse players (either that, or Starn is in for some fun). It would be interesting to know whether the settlement placed any constraints on anyone else associated with Duke (e.g. Brodhead), or if it was just a cash deal. Frankly I'd be surprised if it didn't involve some changes at Duke, given the public statements about requirements for a settlement with Durham.

I happen to think that Duke is fortunate to have Richard Brodhead as its president.

This smart, skilled, and gracious man ... "

This unctuous and smarmy piece tells you all you need to know about Orin Starn --- he "has brown junk all over his face." That earthy metaphor is sure to delight the G-88 types who so enjoy all aspects of sexual symbology. It means that bootlickers at Duke like Starn follow Brodhead very closely down the hall, so as to be able to kiss his ass repeatedly. If Brodhead happens to stop abruptly, say at the water cooler, Starn will get "brown junk all over his face."

If you read his effusive piece carefully, you will note that Starn thought he could at once write a complimentary warm and fuzzy piece to please the boss, while not really violating what clearly must be the written or unwritten policy of Duke regarding comments about the case. I can assure you that Starn has already heard from Duke administration/legal about the "wisdom" of his letter.

For someone with a considerable amount of education, Starn is quite ignorant of the law and clearly oblivious to hundreds of mainstream media reporters, pundits, and reviewers world-wide who have condemned the actions of the Group of 88. Apparently Starn not only quit reading blogs (har-har), he also quit reading anything about the case.

Starn's letter proves the point of just how damaging this agenda-driven group at Duke is to the university.

Oh, pulleeeez, spare me! What sort of handicap are you carrying now, Mr. Starn, a 6 or less- bet it was a great year for your game.

As I recall, he takes his classes flyfishing and was on sabbatical last year in order to "research" his golf book. WHAT A DEAL! How many Robert Trent Jones courses was he able to play in a year? I am sorry, but this is really spurious "scholarship"- I could tell you that flyfishing and golf are considered sports of the "socio-econimically advantaged"- BIG DEAL! That's why both sports have burgeoned over the past two decades (plus the aging of the population).

I vaguely recall reading about his book "Ishi's Brain" and not being impressed by either the man or his "scholarly pursuits."

If Starn wants to do something important, investigate the bastardization of higher education in the United States- he already has a head start on it.

12:08 is definitely Starn; how else would he know for sure what was in that phony, insincere mailing?

You really have a bug up your a$$ about that party, don't you, Starn ?! Damn those kids and their damn cups of beer! Look how close you and your fellow travellers got to practically controlling the Duke endownment! No more stinky Division I Sports! Mandatory diversity training from here to eternity! So close... and yet so far!

We all thank you for establishing the Nazi connection - a well-recognized way of enhancing the quality of any discussion.

As to your contention that "they [Duke] have not -- and will not -- limit the ability of their faculty to express their opinion," consider this (from a recent KC blog):

Such fear of retaliation wasn’t confined to the student body, of course. Take the case of History professor and Group of 88 member Susan Thorne. Last winter, Thorne told a lacrosse player (in writing) that she understood the harm that the Group’s statement caused, and planned to pen a public essay expressing her regret for the statement. Instead, a few weeks later, she signed the “clarifying” document, whose signatories reaffirmed the Group statement and announced that they would not apologize.

When asked why she had gone back on her word and not published her apology, Thorne coldly replied that “If I publish something like this . . . my voice won’t count for much in my world.”

Nice to see what a high-quality readership you have, KC. To Duke's great credit, they have not -- and will not -- limit the ability of their faculty to express their opinion. Or do you readers agree with your National Socialist (Nazi) buddies, who believe that Duke's black faculty should be lynched?

1) Nice to see what a high-quality readership you have, KC. To Duke's great credit, they have not -- and will not -- limit the ability of their faculty to express their opinion.

If you think Duke's attorneys haven't muzzled the G88 from ever opining again about the lacrosse case, you don't understand lawsuit settlements or why Duke was so quick to agree to one with Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans.

Contrary to what you suppose Duke has not done, i.e., shut up the G88, I think if you re-read this thread carefully, you'll discover that the majority of commenters wish the G88 would keep opining, violating the terms of Duke's settlement, and thus adding to the wealth of the students whose characters they impugned.

2) Or do you readers agree with your National Socialist (Nazi) buddies, who believe that Duke's black faculty should be lynched?

a) Cite a single National Socialist (Nazi, for those of you as dumb as 12:08 thinks you are) who has advocated the lynching of Duke's black faculty.

Give us a name, a quotation, and a verifiable reference. Otherwise, we can assume that the assertion is a lie.

b) Name a single National Socialist ("Nazi," as the solicitous 12:08 gives us to understand) who identifies himself as a buddy of KC's. Or whom KC has identified has his buddy.

Give us a name, a quotation, and a verifiable reference. Otherwise, we can assume that this is a baseless, despicable smear (add "lie" to that), and a concession of polemical impotence (see Godwin's Law).

Finally, a smart commentary. Starn tells it right. In all the hoopla about the three players wrongly accused, other issues raised by the case have gotten entirely swept off the radar screen. Which is to say, Duke should be an institution where everyone is constantly being upheld to standards of respect towards students of all races, classes, gender, and ethnicity. When the event first happened, Brodhead insisted on the presumption of innocence of the accused lacrosse players but also insisted that Duke scrutinize itself in terms of campus culture--what are the standards, norms, and values of student/faculty behavior. Is this not what we should be asking for in our institutions of higher learning in the US? And should not a president of a university be the one insisting upon a certain modicum of decent behavior? I agree that no apology was necessary on the part of the Prez. As he insisted at the outset, the legal system ultimately decided the case. What remains is the climate at Duke. And Brodhead's apology said nothing about what kind of standard of behavior students and faculty are expected to maintain in the aftermath of a truly blistering and vicious stream of events.

Orin Starn himself has told me that to this day he has only read one post of KC's Blog. It was a post that detailed the numbers of tenured professors in different departments including AAAS. Orin Starn wrote an op-ed to the Herald Sun claiming widespread factual errors throughout KC's postings. I challenged him on this one year ago, asking him to point out such factual errors. All of the errors he came up with were from that one post and had to do with the precise numbers and titles of people in the AAAS department (and others).

What was the source of the errors? KC Johnson was getting his information from those departments' own websites, which were apparently riddled with errors, if Starn is to be believed.

You want to know where Orin Starn finds out news from Durham-in-Wonderland? His wife reads the blog and reports to him. This is what Orin Starn himself told me.

To KC - I am hoping you will not disappear nearly as much as you imply once you leave for Israel. We will need you to defend your blog and your book as long as radical professors try to obfuscate the truth.

Glad to know Orin is too smart to join the blogosphere. How does a guy who stopped reading blogs months ago have his own blog?

http://golfpolitics.blogspot.com/

Are we really living in a world where the crusade against "privileged" people and the blogosphere is led by a guy with a blog that brags about his 5 handicap and rounds at Pebble Beach? Only in Wonderland.

I have never understood the tenured Left. It is one thing to be on the wrong side of history before the fact: people can be wrong in their predictions.

It is a different matter however, to be provably wrong after the fact. Isn't hindsight supposed to be 20/20?

How can you see DIW as a problem, when BUT FOR their defenders, these kids would be going away for 30 years for something not even Orin Starn thinks they did?

20/400 hindsight. Derm we have a problem.

The only thing the Orin Starn's drivel makes clear is why he is not in the real world: he has no chance at surviving in an environment that would require him to perform, or else be held accountable. Even under the shields of tenure and someone else buying down his immunity from further civil suit, he just can't help himself.

For the love of all things pure: STAY ON CAMPUS ORIN! The adult world is doing just fine without you.

2:34 says..When the event first happened, Brodhead insisted on the presumption of innocence of the accused lacrosse players but also insisted that Duke scrutinize itself in terms of campus culture

Indeed he did, 2:34. And after we go through dicovery and find out how much of an active role the Broadhead administration had, along with the mayors office and the PD, in enabling this frame-up of their students? And the deal that was cut on March 29th and in the following week? (the timeline has begun to dribble out..) What will you say then, oh shill of shills?? What "lessons" shall we learn from that?

These smirking trolls have no idea the kind of smackdown that is coming their way.

After today's slight uncovering of the meeting including Duke representatives, it seems reasonable to speculate that duke is much dirtier than heretofore known. Could this go towards invalidating the settlements already made by reason of concealment.

And, anyway, there are still 43 settlements yet to be made. What if just one of those families is situated and inclined to do their very best to make Duke, and all who sail in her, curse the evil day they chose to try and harm the child of that family? Just one.

Well, when caught lying just lie some more and lie again and again. No, this is what made the horror that was created and manipulated against the lacrosse team. It isn't that others had hired dancers. It was that they had hired dancers. They couldn't be treated as young men full of themselves and their youth and happy. They had to be hounded by types that would have made Puritans blush or Communist or Nazis or any of their ilk, and the sad truth is perhaps the team realized it from the beginning when these two unwanted dancers showed at their party. Look at the pictures taken of those who were in attendance. Look for any criticism of anyone else who held a like party. No, these kids were taken advantage of all the way around by the whole community top to bottom of administrators and educators, police and potbangers . . . can I tell you what frauds you are. No, like Pogo you have met the enemy and it is . . . . the whole crowd of you. The only people who acted "normal" and with courage were the lacrosse team . . . .

You have GOT to be kidding. You have had 18 months to crack your heads against this case and the best you can come up with is more hand wringing about the kids' behavior for which profuse apologies have been offered? And the conclusion that President Brodhead does not owe anyone apologies after all? Who do you think Roy Cooper meant when he said many people owed the former defendants apologies? WHO?!?!? Did you read the Change of Venue motion? Read it...I could be wrong, but I think it's about you!

"Starn tells it right. In all the hoopla about the three players wrongly accused, other issues raised by the case have gotten entirely swept off the radar screen."

To 2:34,"Hoopla about the players falsely accused"?!?!?!? Do you mean "hoopla" as in pointed motions, posts, articles, news shows, conferences, and comments, regarding the gross violations of constitutional rights and due process and "ill-judged" (or in some cases criminal) conduct of those in positions of authority? Or "hoopla" as in the tedious and time consuming efforts to expose the false accusations? Or "hoopla" as in...what, exactly. Could you define "hoopla," please? Are you actually trying to say that if we hadn't had to worry about this "hoopla," if we just hadn't been distracted with the "hoopla" about the the falsely accused, we could have proceeded with our fretting about the college culture--the really significant issue in all of this? And now that all the "hoopla" about the falsely accused is over, we can get back to the other "issues" that perhaps are more interesting, more important, what??? Are you serious?

Your comment, 2:34, is so silly, I almost think you are just trolling for a reaction. So, there's mine.

"Which is to say, Duke should be an institution where everyone is constantly being upheld to standards of respect towards students of all races, classes, gender, and ethnicity."

I suppose we can agree on this at least. But I am curious, what are these "standards of respect towards students of all races, classes, gender, and ethnicity" and how do they apply to the G88 and their treatment of the whole LAX team in general and the three falsely accused players in particular? A lot of people would like to understand this better.

Lucky for the falsely accused that at least some people were interested in something besides the college culture and were willing to raise some "hoopla" on their behalf.

Anonymous said... Attorney's for Duke have got to be thinking, "What part of 'shut up' don't these faculty understand?"

-RD

10/3/07 11:51 AM

LOL, we attorneys think alike. I imagine some young law clerk has been tasked by Duke's legal eagles with researching whether Duke can get a restraining order preventing its 88ist faculty from coming within 10 feet of keyboards or sharp objects.

I hope Starn's more scrupulous about keeping his scorecard than he is about his "blog reading." Didja play Cypress Point too, Orin? Or are you scared to admit that you love playing those exclusive clubs? Oh, I see, it's just research....Right. Fish with an antique Battenkill and a Leonard at the Ausable Club, Orin? I hope so; I'd hate to see you miss out on some "research." H*Y*P*O*C*R*I*T*ETexasMom

When a professor's eyes well up with tears because his university president had to apologize, (Oh, the calamity!), well, I think we need to take action: De-sensitivity training for Starn.__________________

On another note, Starn claims that he doesn't read the blog. A blog that occasionally mentions him in front of thousands of readers every day, millions during the year. I suppose Britney Spears doesn't watch Entertainment Tonight either. Yeah, right!_______________

Ralph this was a gem:

"I agree that faculty should have a right to express their opinions, however stupid, ignorant or vile.

I don't understand why Duke feels the need to hire so many faculty members who are stupid, ignorant and vile." ________________

That Duke student's letter to the editor was very nice. Asking the professors something like, "Are you with us, or just waiting to get us." Very nice. ________________

A week or so ago, my middle school aged daughter asked me, "What's a communist?"

Can those of us who went to school in the 1960s (or earlier) even imagine asking such a question at that age? If we had, the answer would've been, "Well, the reason you have air raid drills and hide beneath your desks is protect yourselves from communist bombs and missiles."

So while today many Americans will (figuratively) hide beneath their desks in similar fear, my daughter's question -- and the reactions to the Hoax of young people in The Duke Chronicle and elsewhere -- gives me hope that in 40 years, maybe an American child will ask, "Daddy, what's a diversity-racist?"

KC, Thanks for keeping the light shining. Mr. Starn as I have learned wasn't part of the G88, which someone noted showed how crafty he is, well either way: I believe in free speech> I hope his speech becomes a libel suit and causes him lots of aggravation and money. He apparently doesn't know how college students normally behave if he takes issue with a party. He is disingenuous at best and a racist at worst for continuing to target innocent lacrosse players. Shame on Duke for allowing him to represent them in the press. Let the lawsuits commence.

You know, Chafe is entirely wrong. Emmett Till does not provide the appropriate historical context for the lacrosse case.

That's because no one had the stupidity to speak up about Emmett Till and say "Well, with all of the hoopla about a fourteen-year-old boy being kidnapped, beaten and murdered, everyone's forgotten about the really shameful way in which he spoke to a white woman..."

And exactly how did he "libel" anyone -- or are you a big fan of puking in your neighbor's zinnias, smashing bottles on their swing sets, promising to "skin the bitches and having strippers over to party? All, actually, proven facts -- unlike the "facts" KC peddles about Duke faculty... Dream on about your law suits.... unless you are a Durham tax payer and anxious to pay a poor, suffering stock broker their deposit on a new Viper...

I was thinking of something more sporty, from Bavaria. It'll make a great addition to the Escalade. Besides, space in the garage is so under-utilized. One can never compliment enough a cottage in the Hamptons!

Oh Orin, do be a good chap and do be sure to clean out your locker @ the c.c..

What is the stuff about the Durham timeline? Bell wanted the DPD to expidite the case. Well, Yeah. The case was "stalled" on 3/29? How can that be? The bloggers have writen for months that the timber was stacked and the match thrown on 3/14 at DUMC.

I was thinking of something more sporty, from Bavaria. It'll make a great addition to the Escalade. Besides, space in the garage is so under-utilized. One can never compliment enough a cottage in the Hamptons!

Oh Orin, do be a good chap and do be sure to clean out your locker @ the c.c..

10/3/07 8:10 PM

It would be nice to see, in a few years, that the boys have "cottages in the Hamptons" ... They could name pieces after the 88ists at Duke who bought it for them.

"This is the Holloway Hall ... And here's the Baker bedroom ... the majestic Starn Stairway ... What do you say we go down to the Davidson Dock and go aboard the S.S. Chafe?"

Well, I don't know about any of the others, but if they're sharing company with this blatant lie, I wouldn't be surprised if all of them are lies. It's nice to know that those still trying to smear the lacrosse team are so desperate that they still resort to the McFadyen e-mail -- even though it's widely known by now that the version that was illegally leaked to the press had actually been edited by the leaker.

The only think better than outsmarting, exposing, defeating and humiliating Radical Leftists is to make some bucks while doing it. Good for Professor Johnson and Stuart Taylor if they can profit from their valuable service to academia.

Hope the 88 and their thousands of Marxist sympathizers throughout US academia seethe at the knowledge that someone makes money by kicking their butts.

We are looking forward to the 88's increased exposure. Enjoy your fame.

Actually, most of the country and many folk in North Carolina did not care about this case at all. I did, many bloggers did, Duke did and thank GD, KC Johnsond did. Because we cared so much does not mean others did.

12:28 It would indeed be prudent for Starn et al to not speak or write as they are doing. As to why they can't keep silent, can't admit error, and are indifferent to the truth, I suspect Narcissistic Personaity Disorder.

"The disorder begins by early adulthood and is indicated by at least five of the following:

1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

Translation: Narcissists cultivate solipsistic or "autistic" fantasies, which is to say that they live in their own little worlds (and react with affront when reality dares to intrude).

3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

4. Requires excessive admiration

Translation: Excessive in two ways: they want praise, compliments, deference, and expressions of envy all the time, and they want to be told that everything they do is better than what others can do. Sincerity is not an issue here; all that matter are frequency and volume.

5. Has a sense of entitlement

Translation: They expect automatic compliance with their wishes or especially favorable treatment, such as thinking that they should always be able to go first and that other people should stop whatever they're doing to do what the narcissists want, and may react with hurt or rage when these expectations are frustrated.

6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends

Translation: Narcissists use other people to get what they want without caring about the cost to the other people.

7. Lacks empathy

8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him

You've inspired me. In the men's latrines at Duke, we could name individual urinals after various members of the 88 -- with artwork appropriately place, if possible. For students who didn't want to wait in line, one urinal per latrine could remain unnamed.

Are you just saying that because of the potential water displacement? :) The problem with "the Lubiano hot tub" is that it is not alliterative. Hmmm ... maybe the Hardt Hottub? Anyway, I am glad you think it would be a nice touch for the boys to name some of there well-gotten toys after the ones responsible for paying for them. :)

Orin has only one word in his attack that has substance and that work is inaccurate. All of the rest of his allegations are about style (sanctimonious, blog framed etc) What is interesting is that he does not offer one supported example of anyone's inaccuracy.In other words he has made another unsupported allegation.

If he wants to be taken seriously, he should release the e-mail of support he sent to Reade so that we can see for ourselves how supportive he was.

If Orrin wants to be part of the dialog, he should engage and show what he believes to be inaccurate.Instead, he and the rest of the 88 think that their position a professors and scholars alone should qualify them to draw conclusions without the necessity of those pesky facts.

For Orrin,it's the rest of us who are the problem since we focus on truth, honesty, character and duty. The democracy of the blogs is offensive for him as he loses his control. He prefers an oligarchy of truth where the many are told what to believe by the ruling families of the academy.

I have been puzzled for a long time about the stated concern of Starn and the G88 over the "Duke culture", specifically the party culture of Duke students..... the party culture certainly exists, no question about it....... and one might even say that the lacrosse players were (at one time) the alpha males of the party culture....... that said, should this be an overarching concern of the Duke faculty, administration, students and alumni? Should this "party culture" be stamped out?

Here's my take on it....... we're talking about young adults here, and they're going to do lots of things, including making mistakes, in their transition to full adulthood....... our primary job is to help and guide them to safely make that transition. Anyone with a teenage son knows that these "developing adults", no matter how ambitious or how bright they are, are going to do what kids their age do, whether they're college students or not...... our job is to mentor them, to guide them along the path to full maturity.... teaching them where the real dangers are..... drinking and driving, street drugs, unprotected sex, getting so drunk you can't protect yourself.......... in other words, keeping them safe as they transition to full adulthood, while still understanding that they're going to drink, they're going to have sex, they're going to experiment........... to think that they're not going to do these things is a total denial of reality.....

Starn seems to argue that the "party culture" should become the new "hostile work environment" for college campuses, with such behavior officially condemned, and, I suppose, with the hope that the culture will somehow be transformed......... in this scenario, student partying will become the equivalent of posting pinups on the wall at work........

Professor Starn, there's just one problem with this scenario...... you won't have any students! Your approach totally denies the realities of college life.... and if you think that will change with the adoption of "policy", you're simply not dealing with reality. If you have a bright kid with his/her choice of good colleges, no matter how it's spun to their parents, do you think the kid will push for the school with a heavily enforced abstinence policy?? That is a true rhetorical question.... or to put it even more cynically, the one issue that will truly unite the students in a common cause is to ban their parties!! They're kids, for Pete's sake!! "Beer riots" are not out of the question.

I guess I'm just old-fashioned, believing that University policy should have at least some vague connection with reality.......

Orin said..."By speaking only of his own supposed mistakes together with a swipe at "ill-judged and divisive" faculty comments, he left unchallenged the inaccurate, sanctimonious, pseudo-objective blog-driven framing of the lacrosse case that by force of repetition seems to have metamorphosed into the truth of what actually happened."

Dear Orin,

It is not Mr Broadhead's role to defend you personally from "bloggers". I understand your frustration at the clarion calls of truth which have unfortunately overwhelmed the hum from your hive. I also recognise that your closed shop has suffered ongoing environmental damage due to an outbreak of permanent record.

You have my sympathies. As such I am willing to offer you a free servicing from Blog Busters. We will work with you to cloud the record and reposition yourself as having been right from the outset. It's a difficult task but together we can do it. Let's face it - it's an impossible task to perform on your own.

So give me a call on

1800-COVER-MYASS

--------------------------------

rrhamilton said...It would be nice to see, in a few years, that the boys have "cottages in the Hamptons" ... They could name pieces after the 88ists at Duke who bought it for them. "This is the Holloway Hall ... And here's the Baker bedroom ... the majestic Starn Stairway ... What do you say we go down to the Davidson Dock and go aboard the S.S. Chafe?"

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review